Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
134 Minutes | Adventure, Fantasy, Animation | 1997-07-12
📥 Princess Mononoke 1997
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Probably the best movie from Miyazaki. A mixture of old Japanese traditions with the story about the conflict between the industrial human being and the preservation of the Nature.
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
149 Minutes | Mystery, Thriller, Drama | 2014-10-01
📥 Gone Girl 2014
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Good cast and decent story, although the end is not very convincing.
The cut of the movie is really good and Rosamund Pike is genuinely scary.
Not a master piece but quite good given the lack of passable movies lately.
Rosamund Pike is outstanding as the wronged wife and Ben Affleck is very good as the husband. It is convoluted, and you do start to think is this just going over the top, but the end just shows Pike's character to be a damaged high-functioning psychopath. So at the final sequence, even if it's a tad far fetched even if you feel that Affleck deserves everything coming to him, the look she gives to the camera is that of an pure evil. As my youngest daughter used to say when she was a kid, she's got scary eyes.
"This man might honestly kill me".
The story is about Nick Dunne, as he finds out his wife has gone missing. As increasing police and media pressure mount, the facade of a loving and blissful union crumbles and amidst the lies and behavior of Nick, the question remains - did he kill her?
David Fincher is a true master class when it comes to directing, because Gone girl is one of the best films of this year.
Ben Affleck was perfect for this role, because Ben Affleck through out he's career had a lot of hate from the media and the critics that mostly slammed him in every role that he was in. And that's why he was outstanding in this movie.
Rosamund Pike acting in this film was pure brilliant and spectacular. She was so good in this role she might get a Oscar nomination for this. Tyler Perry in this movie was actually pretty damn good, and am so surprise saying that because Mr. Perry was in such awful films like: MADEA trilogy, Alex cross and the list goes on. But in this movie he did good.
What this movie does so brilliantly well is how we view media today, because most of the stories you hear on the news might not be true and how the media can spread lies about people and ruining their lives. Everybody always believes what the media says even if it's true or not, because we don't know what that person on the news is going through, and this movie got that message out they so perfectly.
My only problem with this movie is Neil Patrick Harris character. Now let me just say that Neil Patrick Harris wasn't terrible in the movie, but his character to me slowed the film down.
Overall Gone Girl is a fantastic film.
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
152 Minutes | Drama, Action, History | 2019-11-13
📥 Ford v Ferrari 2019
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
A biography on American underdogs from a blue-collar industry with notable actors, an impressive production team, and an inspiring story; did someone say Oscars? Whatever its intent, ‘Ford v Ferrari’ is an impressive biopic that rarely strays from its path. A melding of entertainment and creativity, this should be considered both a commercial and critical success. Fire up your engine and race to the cinema to catch this film that everyone’s sure to be talking about.
- Charlie David Page
Read Charlie's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-ford-v-ferrari-a-racing-biopic-thats-right-on-track
_**I'd have preferred to see Michael Mann's version, but this is an impressive and heartfelt study of friendship and triumph**_
>_Next year, Ferrari's ass is mine._
- Carroll Shelby, after losing to Ferrari in the 1964 World Sports Car Championship
>_To take control of this materialised energy, to draw the reins over this monster with its steel muscles and fiery heart - there is something in the idea which appeals to an almost universal sense, the love of power._
- A.J. Baime; _Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans_ (2009)
In 2015, a long-gestating project was announced as entering pre-production – based on Brock Yates's 1991 book _Enzo Ferrari: The Man, the Cars, the Races_, the film was tentatively called _Enzo Ferrari_ and was to be written, produced, and directed by Michael Mann (_Heat_; _The Insider_; _Ali_). A long-time racing fan, Mann had been trying to bring Ferrari's story to the screen since the book was published (in 1992 it was reported that Robert De Niro was circling the role and Mann would begin shooting right after he completed work on _The Last of the Mohicans_), but in 2015, things seemed to finally be moving ahead. Christian Bale was cast as Ferrari and Noomi Rapace as his mistress, Lina Lardi. And then, nothing. Time passed and no more was heard until 2017, when it was announced that Bale had dropped out and been replaced by Hugh Jackman. And again, nothing. In the meantime, a different film was greenlighted – an adaptation of A.J. Baime's 2009 book, _Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans_. Set to star Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, it was to be written by Jason Keller (_Machine Gun Preacher_; _Mirror Mirror_; _Escape Plan_) and directed by Joseph Kosinski (_Tron: Legacy_; _Oblivion_; _Only the Brave_). That version of the project never got off the ground, but in 2018, it was announced that James Mangold (_Cop Land_; _Girl, Interrupted_; _Logan_) had signed on as director, working from a new version of Keller's script, written by Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth (_Fair Game_; _Edge of Tomorrow_; _Get On Up_). Rather confusingly, none other than Christian Bale is in the cast, although not as Ferrari, whilst Mann himself is credited as an executive producer. Is this (at least in part) the remnants of his own film? Is his credit related to nothing more than rights, or was he actively involved in making the movie? Will we still see his _Enzo Ferrari_ at some point?
_Le Mans '66_ (released in North American with the equally generic title of _Ford v Ferrari_) is an excellently made but unadventurous movie. Mangold is a fine director, but he's no Mann, nowhere near, and the film did, to a certain extent, just leave me pondering what kind of kinetic brilliance Mann would have brought to bear on similar material. In contrast, to Mann's body of work, _Le Mans '66_ could never be accused of breaking any new ground or trying anything especially original – it hits all the beats, it hits them well, but it never strays from the formula. Much as Mann's _Ali_ (2001) was a boxing movie on the surface only, being far more interested in politics and institutional racism, Mangold's film isn't really about motor cars – it's about friendship, male pride, personal integrity, sticking it to the Man, art v commerce, individuals v corporations; it is, in essence, a thematically broad and aesthetically anonymous pre-_auteur_ theory audience-pleaser made with the technology and aesthetic sensibilities of modernity. And whilst the individual parts may be unsatisfactorily safe and familiar, the whole is unexpectedly accomplished and immensely enjoyable.
The film begins in 1959 as Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) wins that year's 24 Hours of Le Mans in an Aston Martin DBR1/300. However, shortly after the victory, he's told he has a heart condition and must stop racing. The film then jumps to 1963, as Ken Miles (Christian Bale), a brilliant but volatile and unpredictable driver, is running a sports car repair garage in LA, but the venture is failing (mainly because he continuously berates his customers for one thing or another). The British-born Miles has a reputation as one of the best drivers in the world, and is renowned for his almost supernatural ability to identify problems in test cars after only one or two laps. However, because of his personality, no one will hire him. Meanwhile, Ford Motor Company Vice President and General Manager Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) suggests that Henry Ford II (a superb Tracy Letts, who steals every scene he's in) buy the cash-strapped Ferrari N.V., speculating that Ford's involvement in international racing may go some way to countering the company's reputation for making boring and unattractive family cars (in essence, he hopes the purchase will give the company more street cred). Enzo Ferrari (Remo Girone), however, turns down the deal in favour of a counter-offer by Fiat Automobiles, which is more lucrative and allows him to retain ownership of Scuderia Ferrari (Ferrari's racing division). He also calls Ford II fat. Enraged, Ford II determines to build a car capable of winning Le Mans, a race which has been dominated by Ferrari for years, winning in 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963. Iacocca reaches out to Shelby, the last non-Ferrari driver to have won the event, and asks him to design a car which can beat any Ferrari. Shelby and his engineering partner Phil Remington (Ray McKinnon) get to work but soon Shelby explains to Iacocca and Ford II that they will need a great driver as well as a well-designed car. And so he reaches out to Miles, who comes on board, but immediately clashes with the Ford executives, particularly Senior Executive Vice President Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). Nevertheless, Shelby, Remington, and Miles press on developing the GT40, a car capable of reaching speeds of 135 mph, if only it didn't keep breaking down.
_Le Mans '66_ is somewhat similar to Damien Chazelle's _First Man_ (2018), insofar as it uses the grandiose moments of history to tell an intimate story. Whereas Chazelle used the Apollo Program as the background against which to examine a failing marriage, Mangold uses the determination to win Le Mans '66 as the background against which to examine issues such as friendship and the clash between gifted individuals for whom success is its own reward and corporations who don't see value in anything unless it's monetarily successful. Indeed, the argument could be made that the film is actually a commentary on the Hollywood studio system, with Shelby and Miles representing independent filmmakers who love the craft and see the medium as an art-form, whilst the Ford executives represent the studio, always more concerned with the bottom dollar than artistic integrity, always getting in the way of the people who, if left alone to work, could produce something spectacular.
The film is also extremely funny in places, especially in a scene where Shelby shows up at Miles's house, and the two get into a fight on the street. Miles's wife Mollie (an underused Caitriona Balfe) emerges from the house, looks at the two men fighting, goes back inside, and remerges with a garden chair, a drink, and a copy of _Better Living_. She then sits down to watch the action. It's a hilarious moment, but it's one with great thematic importance Рthis is very much an androcentric world (Mollie is virtually the only female in the entire film), but for this brief moment, the audience is allowed to pull back and laugh at the utter ridiculousness of competitive maleness Рboys will be clich̩d boys, always trying to outdo each other, and getting all worked up over something as pointless as a fast car.
This thematic focus, however, is not to say the film ignores the intricacies of racing; on the contrary, there's a huge amount of techno-babble concerning vectors, aerodynamics, the mathematics of torque, the torsion of metal, and the ins and outs of physics. Additionally, although thematically, the focus isn't on the races themselves, there's no denying that the aesthetic design of these scenes is exemplary, albeit familiar. Mann would have done wonders here, but Mangold, cinematographer Phedon Papamichael (_The Ides of March_; _This Is 40_; _Nebraska_), and sound designers David Giammarco (_The Amazing Spider-Man 2_; _The Dark Tower_; _The Predator_) and Jay Wilkinson (_Furious 6_; _Man of Steel_; _Alpha_) have crafted some truly intense moments. For the most part, Mangold and Papamichael avoid any objective shots (for example, there are no overheads giving us a good vantage of the entire race), and there are very few shots showing us something that Miles is unable to see. The scenes aren't shot in the first-person, but our vision is anchored to his. This, of course, contributes to a subjective focalisation and creates the sense of being in the car with him, which brings a default level of intensity, as well as giving the viewer a perfect vantage point from which to see just how fast these guys are going and how difficult what they do actually is.
Is there a Mann influence on the racing scenes? Absolutely; if you're familiar with how Mann often shoots cars in motion (the camera affixed to the side of the car, with the screen virtually split in two – the side of the car taking up one half, the approaching road taking up the other), you simply can't help but notice the similar positioning of Papamichael's camera. Are they the best racing scenes ever put on film? No; you can find those in Lee H. Katzin's _Le Mans_ (1971), which intercuts footage shot during the real 1970 event with material staged for the film, lending the whole thing an unprecedented intensity that has yet to be topped. However, _Le Mans '66_ makes a hell of an effort, and that can only be commended.
In terms of problems, there are only two of any significance. The first concerns just how safe and rudimentary the film is. Aesthetically, although the race scenes are kinetic and exciting, there isn't anything new or inventive in them; thematically, the film doesn't say anything we haven't heard before; and structurally, it walks a very well-worn path – chances are that everything that you think might happen in _Le Mans '66_ does happen. This is your basic underdog story, and it adheres rigidly to that template. The character of Beebe is a good example of just how rigidly. In essence, he's a poorly written token villain because you can't have an underdog story without a token villain (usually in the form of bureaucratic interference). In this case, when Mangold feels the need to inject some conflict into proceedings, Beebe will pop up to throw a wrench into the works. His motivation? Apart from some brief references to how he doesn't think Miles is a "_Ford man_", his antipathy is never explained – the character is a Swiss army knife villain who can be used for multiple purposes, a one-size-fits-all token bad guy without an iota of nuance or interiority. The second problem concerns Shelby himself, who is disappointingly one-dimensional (at best), as we learn absolutely nothing about his personal life – for example, the film makes no reference to the fact that by 1963 he was on wife number three (of seven!). Who is the film's Carroll Shelby, and why should non-racing fans care about him? We never get an answer – he's Matt Damon wearing a Stetson and speaking with a Texas drawl. And that's about all the character development he gets.
Although these issues are significant in isolation, the thing about _Le Mans '66_ is that it's so well made, it rises above the clichéd and overly-familiar nature of many of the individual scenes, resulting in a whole that is very much more than the sum of its parts. A film about friendship and integrity rather than racing, it doesn't take any risks, nor does it bend any rules. Indeed it does nothing that could be labelled innovative. For all that, however, I couldn't help but enjoy it. It won't surprise you, it probably won't move you, it certainly won't change your life, but the storytelling is clear and refined, and the journey is one well worth taking.
I never expected a sports film, let alone one based on a true story, to impress me so damn much. James Mangold offers one of the best, if not the best sports movie ever. With award-worthy performances from both Christian Bale and Matt Damon, Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans ‘66) has characters so exceptionally-written and so emotionally compelling that I felt like crying by the end of the film. The races are riveting and entertaining, but it’s the beautiful screenplay that gets me. Definitely, one of the movies of the year!
Rating: A+
I think _Ford v Ferrari_ suffers from mismarketing. I don't mean that it was poorly marketed, and that the trailers made it look bad or anything. Just that it was marketed inaccurately. When I was keeping myself abreast of this project, it seemed very much that the insinuation was that the movie would be a battle between Bale's and Damon's respective characters. That this would essentially be the run-through of the whole film, and the climax would feature one emerging victorious over the other. In actual fact, the opposite is true. _Ford v Ferrari_ is largely about the friendship and partnership of those two characters. An occasionally rugged, and one occasion even violent friendship, but a friendship nonetheless. Even the title is misleading. I suppose Ford does v Ferrari at a couple of points over the movie's runtime, but it's not what _Ford v Ferrari_ is **about**. In fact, Ferrari barely features in the movie at all. Here's the kicker though: I actually liked what this thing ended up being, more than I think I would have enjoyed a movie that really did revolve around Bale actually versing Damon, or one about Ford actually versing Ferrari.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
Well made sports-racing movie with excellent acting by Damon and Bale (no surprise there) and the racing sequences were great, not to mention the sound design. Kind of was concerned there wouldn't be enough story to fill the nearly 2.5 hour runtime, but this kept me engaged, though the ending was a bit anticlimactic. Still, good work from James Mangold. **4.5/5**
Click here for a video version of this review: https://youtu.be/IByQpyGV9Lg
Despite not being a big fan of track car racing - I’m more of a rally man - the chance to see Matt Damon and Christian Bale lead in a true life story attracted me to _Ford v Ferrari_. It’s a very good movie that tells the tale of the development of Ford’s race program to topple Ferrari as the champions of Le Mans.
Here’s the official description:
_American car designer Carroll Shelby and the British-born driver Ken Miles work together to battle corporate interference, the laws of physics, and their own personal demons to build a revolutionary race car for Ford Motor Company and take on the dominating race cars of Enzo Ferrari at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in France in 1966._
I’ll say up front that even though Ferrari is mentioned in the title, they don’t really play a huge part in the movie. I was expecting things to bounce between each camp as they tried to one up each other in the race for glory. While Ferrari are here and there throughout, the main battle of the movie is Shelby and Miles trying to get their work done amidst the interference from factions within Ford’s management.
It still makes for a great story though, and it’s a movie that takes you on a ride of many highs and lows. From technological failures and success, to corporate shenanigans, to father-son moments, this hits so many beats that it kept us entertained the whole way through. Not only does it hit them, it does them very very well. There were some moments where I was genuinely holding my breath. It’s great stuff.
Even from a technical point of view there is a lot to love about this. The cinematography was a stand out for me - some of the sunset shots were stunning, as were the very intense race sequences. I’m sure there’s CGI all through this but it was of such a good quality that it was barely noticeable.
Damon and Bale are outstanding and lead from the front, with Bale in particular seeming to inhabit the role and transform, as he so often does. Even all the side characters bring their A game and the end result is a pleasure to watch.
This is an excellent film, it’s the whole package and feels like a real film as opposed to much of the cookie cutter movies we get a lot of these days.
I thoroughly enjoyed this and highly recommend it.
Exactly what you'd expect from a movie featuring Led Zeplin in its trailer (+1 star for Christian Bale's compelling performance).
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
| Thriller | 2020-10-30
📥 Fatale 2020
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
88 Minutes | Horror, Thriller, Drama | 2020-07-23
📥 The Rental 2020
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
The Rental is Dave Franco’s debut as both director and screenwriter of a feature film. Making a successful horror movie was never an easy task, but I believe it’s even harder nowadays. This genre has evolved in so many ways by delving into distinct subgenres and helping new directors deliver brilliant horror stories. Of course, every year has dozens of awful horror films, and most of the “Worst Movies of the Year” lists possess more than one horror flick. However, I firmly defend horror is reaching audiences like never before, and I genuinely believe that it’s a matter of time until a Best Picture award goes to this genre.
So, is The Rental one of the better ones or not so much? Well, it’s as “okay” as it can be. I find it hard to heavily criticize a film that doesn’t really give me much to actually analyze. It’s a straightforward story with barely any complexity. Four characters with clear yet generic motivations. Their relationships and how they handle each romantic bond is surprisingly the most interesting aspect of the movie. Still, besides being somewhat predictable, it seems more captivating than what it truly is because one particular screenplay element fails to deliver a compelling narrative.
The main (and honestly, only) horror component of the story is no more than a hollow attempt at creating a franchise. Now, there’s nothing wrong with teasing an overarching story in the first film of a saga, but if this tease plays the entire horror role, then the only feeling Franco is getting from the audience is disappointment. Viewers might look forward to jumpscares and creepy sequences, but if the questions the movie makes are left unanswered, chances are people will dislike the ambiguity.
I’d be interested in a sequel because this first film creates a really intriguing mystery that I’d love to see developed and eventually solved. However, this comes at the cost of sacrificing the latter flick since it basically uses the whole runtime to introduce the overarching character/element. The Rental follows the usual “friends in a vacation house where things are not what they seem” formula, which doesn’t really set up Franco as a horror director to follow closely. He shows a bit of skill, the uneasy atmosphere is well-established, and he lets the actors play off their dialogues without too many cuts, something I deeply enjoy.
Technically, it’s quite good, to be honest. It’s a very dark movie, but I could see everything clearly, which is usually a problem in this type of horror film. The third act might be partially a letdown, but its execution holds the necessary tension and suspense. Dan Stevens and Sheila Vand deliver two great performances, showing remarkable chemistry. Alison Brie and Jeremy Allen White are also good, but the previous duo steals the spotlight. I wish it had more horror-like sequences, even though I appreciate the focus on the character’s relationships and dynamics.
All in all, The Rental is a clear attempt at creating a new horror franchise, and honestly, it partially works. If “success” means getting the viewers interested in a sequel, then mission accomplished. However, sacrificing the first movie of a possible saga to just introduce its main horror element doesn’t quite work as Dave Franco might have thought. In his directorial debut, Franco focuses on the characters and their relationships, which are undoubtedly the most captivating aspects of the film, also thanks to a fantastic cast. Despite some neat technical attributes, the formulaic screenplay and its predictable developments are far from being entertaining enough to hold my attention. The dozens of unanswered questions definitely leave an open door to produce a genuinely compelling sequel, but this first installment will always feel more like a prologue than an actual movie. If you’re just looking for a simple horror flick to spend your extra time, this one won’t surprise you, but it might be a good, inoffensive Saturday night pick.
Rating: C
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
88 Minutes | Drama, War | 1957-09-18
📥 Paths of Glory 1957
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Madness and Patsies Crash Together In Kubrick's Explosive Thunderbolt.
Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory is holding up rather well these days, in fact it's as pertinent and relevant as ever.
It's 1916 and the French and German armies are in opposing mud trenches, when the French are ordered to undertake a suicidal assault on a German held hill, many of the soldiers are quick to realise it's an impossible order to see through to its conclusion and retreat, something which brings charges of cowardice from the military hierarchy. Someone must take the fall...
Withdrawn from circulation in France at one time, unreleased in Spain as well, Paths of Glory is a shattering indictment on military hierarchy. On those General types who watch from afar through telescopic sights as men and boys are led like lambs to the slaughter, then off they go to their dinning rooms to gorge on wine and wholesome meat, the stench of rotting flesh as bad on their breaths as it is out there in no man's land. But it's OK for the war effort, while there might even be a promotion for some lucky soul in nice trousers...
A two-parter, the film was adapted from the novel written by Humphrey Cobb. The first half follows the craziness of the attack, the horrors of war brutally realised as Kubrick and cinematographer Georg Krause bring out the worry and simmering anger that jostle for the soldier's souls. The camera is cold and calculating, thus perfect for the material to hand, it leads the viewers - with skillful fluidity - through the bleakness of the trenches and the desolation of no man's land, the former a foreboding place, the latter an atrocity exhibition as bodies get flayed and shattered, while others retreat with limbs or sanity barely intact.
Second part shifts to a legally based procedural as the Generals conspire to make an example of those who retreated. Cowardice and a dereliction of duty apparently means the firing squad must save the integrity of the army. Patsies are lined up, but their Colonel (a superb Kirk Douglas) wants to defend them, there's much sweat, tears and anger, accusations hurled, and mistakes once again proving insurmountable. Which leads to the astonishing finale, heartbreaking whilst inducing fury, and crowned by an elegiac song that brings tears for characters and viewers alike.
A monochrome masterpiece full of technical skills, towering performances and writing to die for, Paths of Glory, candidate for one of the greatest anti-military films ever crafted. 10/10
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
160 Minutes | Action, Thriller, Crime | 2012-06-22
📥 Gangs of Wasseypur - Part 1 2012
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE